quote:

ometimes all the officers ask for is a driver's license.

If you show no signs of being intoxicated, even asking for this is overreach, IMO.

Am I deing betained?

quote:

Originally posted by zoom6zoom:

quote:

ometimes all the officers ask for is a driver's license.

If you show no signs of being intoxicated, even asking for this is overreach, IMO.

Overreach, eh?

Thanks to the computer systems police use, a significant number of drivers with a suspended drivers license or an arrest warrant against them are found during a simple traffic stop when the DL is entered into the data.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:

I suppose you could make the same argument about having to stop at red lights or driving in the carpool lane with 2 or more people in the car or that the speed limit laws are suggestions only for the dolts.

Is that what you're arguing because from the tone of your post any action taking by government that slows down your travels seems to be suspect.

This is really no different than going door-to-door "fishing" for something to arrest somebody.
Even though this has been upheld (thank God Texas doesn't go for for this tyranny) it is not right.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:

I suppose you could make the same argument about having to stop at red lights or driving in the carpool lane with 2 or more people in the car or that the speed limit laws are suggestions only for the dolts.

Is that what you're arguing because from the tone of your post any action taking by government that slows down your travels seems to be suspect.

This is really no different than going door-to-door "fishing" for something to arrest somebody.
Even though this has been upheld (thank God Texas doesn't go for for this tyranny) it is not right.

It's very different because you are not obligated to talk with the officer who does a door to door. That's actually a really poor example and the Supreme Court has never, and I want to say it again - never - hinted, intimated or said that just going door to door with a knock and sniff or observe is constitutionally permissive. You have far protections in your house from the cops than you day driving or travelling through an airport. I suppose you find something wrong with metal detectors at courthouses too?

DUI checkpoints have passed constitutional muster for many years and even the LEOs here agree. There are quite a few criteria for a DUI checkpoint and these points have been argued and re-argued at the Supreme Court. You would learn quite a bit if you read an opinion or two on the checkpoints.

Political appointees in robes do not always get it right. DUI checkpoints are a good example.

They are legal. Given that in TN we have to announce where and when they will take place through local media if you get busted at one I have little sympathy.

How legal are they? Of all the defenses I’ve heard used in court over the last two decades “your honor, the dui check point is clearly an illegal detention and violation of my clients 4th and 5th Ammendment rights,”has not been among them. I’ve seen bodies tossed out as evidence, but not a checkpoint.

The number of DUI related deaths runs around 10,000-11,000 per year in the U.S. The number has dropped off considerable over the past 50 years due to safer vehicle design, restraints, and airbags, and stricter laws and enforcement. NHTSA keeps track of the numbers and they are always tragic.

Roughly 1% of 111 million licensed drivers are arrested for DUI each year. But DUI drivers are responsible for 28% of all traffic deaths. DUI drivers are a menace to public safety. Those of us who were or are first responders have seen the carnage firsthand. So have the judges who rule on the legality of checkpoints and they have consistently held that the need to curb DUI's is in the public interest. They have also held that DUI checkpoints be conducted in the least obtrusive manner possible, and that they not be used as an excuse for other or discriminatory enforcement actions. This is why the time and place and protocol is determined by an official who is not present or involved in any enforcement action. There are elements of education, deterrence, and enforcement in DUI checkpoints.

My department advertised that we were doing a DUI checkpoint in the newspaper and on radio and TV, identifying the time date and place. Senior command officers and prosecutors were generally present to observe. Average contact time between officers and drivers was less than a minute. We tried to keep the delay to under 10 minutes. We still made a whole busload of arrests and citations for DUI, no driver's license, no insurance, and warrants, among other things. Now and again we got complaints but for the most part the motoring public appreciates efforts to keep drunks off the road.

A lot of DUI's I have encountered were nice people when they were sober, but every one of them is an asshole when driving drunk.

quote:

I suppose you find something wrong with metal detectors at courthouses too?

I find them annoying and mostly unnecessary.

quote:

DUI checkpoints have passed constitutional muster for many years and even the LEOs here agree.

I could care less "who" agrees or not.
It is a violation of probable cause in my mind.
Simply fishing.
Driving in a suspicious way - no problem here but to randomly stop (or stop all traffic even worse) just to fish > is wrong IMO.

Something about liberty vs. security...

The checkpoints have been upheld.

I still think they violate the 4th amendment as unreasonable searches. There is absolutely no probable cause - by definition - as they round up everyone. I agree with ArtieS' analysis.

But until I, and four others like me are on the Supreme Court, they are legal.

(As noted, some states are more restrictive than others.)

Super easy solution to anyone having problems with these checkpoints; DON'T DRINK and DRIVE.

I agree they are a PITA at times, but I have always been waved through in a matter of 5-10 seconds.

quote:

Originally posted by GWbiker:

Should we return to those days of allowing drunks to drive and kill innocent people?

I'm not that old. How long ago was it that driving dunk and killing innocent people was legal? How exactly does believing DUI check points to be unconstitutional suddenly mean drunk driving and killing people are legal?

A bit of a thread drift.

An officer stops you and says: "Do you know why I stopped you?"
Should you say "No" doesn't that mean you are driving distracted or not paying attention?
Should you say "Yes" you are either confessing to what he stopped you for or confessing to something else.

I've thought about saying "Officer what was your probable cause to stop me?" But I can see that go South really fast.

Other cops experience with check points may be different than mine but:
It was a waste of time, manpower and resources. Many, many cars stopped. Very few OMVI arrests.
A few for suspended OL or Warrants.
Several check points I worked made less than 10 arrests.
And the most arrests were made when we posted 2 cars a short distance before the check point and stopped the cars we saw turning around to avoid the check point.
Dog and pony show. I finally refused to work them. Didn't help me. I was then ordered to.
Ours were publicized in the news media prior to the check point.
Legal but pointless.

quote:

Originally posted by GWbiker:

quote:

Originally posted by roberth:

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:
The Supreme Court sometimes gets things wrong, and I am inclined to think that this is one of those times.

The state is forcing you to interact with its agents, even if briefly, so that it's agents can find sufficient evidence of a crime (DUI, driving without a license, etc) to rise to the level of probable cause for an arrest. That is the purpose of these things.

I don't believe that the state should be given that advantage. I'm firmly of the belief that they should have to catch wrongdoers by observing citizens doing something wrong, not fishing for violators by forcing them to pass through a screening process to continue on their way.

I understand that some folks will argue with me on this, and that the scourge of drunk driving is so great as to justify this intrusion into liberty. But I am something of a liberty absolutist and I am also very suspicious of state power.

Agreed.

I can hear them now, "but its just 20 minutes out of your day", or "we're trying to keep you safe", or some other bullshit.

DUI checkpoints are an infringement on liberty just like the NFA, waiting periods before we take possession of firearms, and other assorted nanny state nonsense.

I can recall not too long ago when the motor vehicle accident fatality rate was around 50,000 a year. Half of those were related to drunk drivers on roadways.

Should we return to those days of allowing drunks to drive and kill innocent people.

The Border check points are another PITA stops for this AZ driver....but much narcotics are seized at these stops and I really don't mind being asked: "Are you a US Citizen". (Although my GF sometimes wants to answer the officer in Spanish).

Drugs are killing people. Shouldn't we try put a stop to the illegal traffic of narcotics?

I would be willing to bet that distracted driving kills and injures more Americans every year than drunk driving. Maybe we should have covert distracted driving observation details at busy intersections. I would be the first to tell you that you would need an Army of LEO's to write citations 24/7 is someone actually implemented this.

quote:

Originally posted by Icabod:
A bit of a thread drift.

An officer stops you and says: "Do you know why I stopped you?"
Should you say "No" doesn't that mean you are driving distracted or not paying attention?
Should you say "Yes" you are either confessing to what he stopped you for or confessing to something else.

I've thought about saying "Officer what was your probable cause to stop me?" But I can see that go South really fast.

They are fishing for an admission of guilt.

"Do you know why I stopped you?"

"I guess I ran that stop sign."

BINGO!

I don't get stopped very often because I drive like your grandpa, but I just tell them I don't know why they stopped me. Don't be snarky. Don't admit to anything, for God's sake.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:

quote:

Originally posted by roberth:

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:...

...

I suppose you could make the same argument about having to stop at red lights or driving in the carpool lane with 2 or more people in the car or that the speed limit laws are suggestions only for the dolts.

Is that what you're arguing because from the tone of your post any action taking by government that slows down your travels seems to be suspect.

Of course not. That's asinine. Redlights are a rational traffic control measure that are pretty clearly not "state agents" searching for crime, and controlled access to a courthouse or other secure area, where the state has a reasonable need for security is neither unreasonable, nor is it any sort of constitutional violation of the right to travel.

In fact, the holding of Rhenquist's opinions on these stops doesn't turn on the privileges and immunities clause right to travel at all. It is clearly a 4th amendment case, and Rhenquist and the majority found an exception to the constitutional requirement of no investigation except upon a warrant issued on probably cause.

Hell, the requirements for these DUI stops is less than a Terry Stop, which requires at least reasonable suspicion, which falls short of probably cause.

A DUI checkpoint is a state sanctioned "turn out your pockets" and we permit it in NO OTHER CASE. Border and customs enforcement is different, and comes from a different legal tradition. For what it's worth, I don't buy the we can check anyone within 100 miles of the border argument, either. That's bullshit. I consent to a search when I cross a national boundary. That's a well established legal principle.

How is stopping every third car and asking for license and registration not a case of "Papers please?"

quote:

Originally posted by Graniteguy:

quote:

Originally posted by GWbiker:

quote:

Originally posted by roberth:

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:
The Supreme Court sometimes gets things wrong, and I am inclined to think that this is one of those times.

The state is forcing you to interact with its agents, even if briefly, so that it's agents can find sufficient evidence of a crime (DUI, driving without a license, etc) to rise to the level of probable cause for an arrest. That is the purpose of these things.

I don't believe that the state should be given that advantage. I'm firmly of the belief that they should have to catch wrongdoers by observing citizens doing something wrong, not fishing for violators by forcing them to pass through a screening process to continue on their way.

I understand that some folks will argue with me on this, and that the scourge of drunk driving is so great as to justify this intrusion into liberty. But I am something of a liberty absolutist and I am also very suspicious of state power.

Agreed.

I can hear them now, "but its just 20 minutes out of your day", or "we're trying to keep you safe", or some other bullshit.

DUI checkpoints are an infringement on liberty just like the NFA, waiting periods before we take possession of firearms, and other assorted nanny state nonsense.

I can recall not too long ago when the motor vehicle accident fatality rate was around 50,000 a year. Half of those were related to drunk drivers on roadways.

Should we return to those days of allowing drunks to drive and kill innocent people.

The Border check points are another PITA stops for this AZ driver....but much narcotics are seized at these stops and I really don't mind being asked: "Are you a US Citizen". (Although my GF sometimes wants to answer the officer in Spanish).

Drugs are killing people. Shouldn't we try put a stop to the illegal traffic of narcotics?

I would be willing to bet that distracted driving kills and injures more Americans every year than drunk driving. Maybe we should have covert distracted driving observation details at busy intersections. I would be the first to tell you that you would need an Army of LEO's to write citations 24/7 is someone actually implemented this.

Perhaps we should have police checkpoints where they inspect your phone for any sign of recent texts or calls made while driving. I'm sure most people wouldn't have a problem with that.

These threads are always crazy. And way yonder full of hyperbole.

On one side you have the "its only a few seconds". On the other side, you apparently have the crowd who see an agent of the state and over reach IN EVERYTHING. Cop asks you if you are having a nice day, and the answer is always "AM I BEING DETAINED?".

The truth is somewhere in the middle. The key, on both sides, resides in "Don't be a dick". Be nice.

Either we are a nation of laws, or we aren't. Right now, sobriety check points are legal. One of these days, maybe they won't be. And if that day comes, I'm good with it. I've worked many a cold night on a DUI checkpoint. Can't say as I cared for it much, and would find something else to do these days if I went back to the road.

Everybody wants to play how smart they are by saying "well, in my mind". Great. Too bad the courts in this nation of laws disagrees with your mind. It has been my experience that when people start telling me their opinion on the side of the road, that disagrees with the statue, they wind up talking themselves into a citation for whatever they got stopped for. And I wasn't in the business of writing tickets.

Either we are a nation of laws, or we aren't. You choose. (Cue up the "but...but...but...what if they told you to confiscate guns????? HUH???? HUH????)

Don't be a dick. Cops working check points.......Don't be a dick. Smile and be nice, even if you don't want to be there.

When and if the laws change, we'll all laugh about how silly it was.